Readers' comments

At the NAIAS the Schaeffler Company revealed their newest solutions to the new car technology. The solutions include Schaeffler's: latching valve, which is controlled by pressure pulses; and wrap spring one-way clutch for permanently connecting a starter to the housing of the torque converter. Both products give automobile manufacturers the opportunity to further optimize the performance of their current ESS systems.

Any enhancement that the auto industry can make to increase the environmental capacity of the auto is a good step for the future. However, new car sales are low and must increase for the economy to keep climbing upward. Companies such as the Schaeffler Group who manufacture parts for new cars depend on the sales. Makes sense to increase sales while helping the environment.

Lovely article. I especially like the kind words about Mr. Kerry who is the type of person that preaches water and drinks wine. He owned 9 (nine) big SUVs at the time when he made those comments about fuel economy...

You miss the point of the GOP opposition. The GOP does not oppose energy efficient cars. The GOP opposes dictating to the industry what they should do.

Raising the energy efficiency standard of cars was wrong because the industry did not want to do it. That may have been a stupid move on the part of the auto industry's. But, the industry is entitled to make stupid moves. That's what happens in free enterprise.

The reason things changed is not because Congress suddenly became smarter. It's because gas prices went up on the free market. People started buying more fiel efficient cars on the free market. So, car manufacturers finally decided to start making them.

The auto makers did not oppose the Obama fuel standards vigorously, because they know that they need to hit those standards anyways even without the government. All the standards mean is that their competitors are all forced to undertake the same challenges.

"Raising the energy efficiency standard of cars was wrong because the industry did not want to do it. That may have been a stupid move on the part of the auto industry's. But, the industry is entitled to make stupid moves. That's what happens in free enterprise."

I agree with your comment, and I'd add that the really annoying part about CAFFE standards is that they continue the most frustrating habit of politics- pretending that someone besides consumers should and will maintain the cost of public goals. Some kind of carbon tax is a more honest and effective way of reaching the same goal.

That said, I don't believe these are reasons are behind GOP opposition to raising CAFFE standards. When parties reach a conclusion, I trust they are led to it by corruption, temptation, defenestration and/or the urge to mislead the public. If said conclusion matches the one a sensible, virtuous and courageous individual would have reached, that is either a coincidence or a miracle to be celebrated without crediting the possessed host anymore than you would hire a drunk who happens to collapse in the bath of an escaping purse-snatcher or a rogue who fathers a prophet by a teenage runaway who only wanted a ride to the next town.

The solution to that is not to ban inefficient cars, but rather to tax it. Taxes can help realign market pressures. They could place a tax on pollutants emitted by your car. Or a tax on the mileage you drive your car or a tax on gas (which already exists).

A tax is clearly the best solution for capturing the environmental costs of inefficient and/or high-emissions vehicles. Unfortunately, it remains politically impossible in the US (and that is unlikely to change any time soon). So for those concerned about pollution, the options are: a.) do nothing until the tax becomes viable, or b.) take at least small steps via a different, non-ideal route (such as the fuel-efficiency standards).

It is also worth noting that the fuel-efficiency standards are really quite flexible, in that they apply to carmaker's entire fleet of vehicles- with flexibility as to how the standards are met. The rules do not outright prohibit inefficient vehicles.

No, the industry is not entitled to make stupid moves if its consequences affect us all. The industry is part of a larger society. If we, as a society, do not want to green-light smaller components of our society to act stupidly, then they are not entitled to it.
We're not Somalia. Our society has rules. We can't just do whatever the heck we want to do to make money. There's a reason why there are laws and there is a government.

According to US News, it's black and silver. Politico speculated a while back that Mr. Lott traded his Cadillac because "Now that he’s a lobbyist, he wanted a car that was less ostentatious so that his clients didn’t think that they were overpaying him." (political.com)

Anyone handing over good money to a discredited buffoon like Trent Lott would be too stupid to know if they were overpaying him or not. He could be swanning down K Street in a solid gold chariot pulled by Kentucky thoroughbreds and they'd neither know nor care.

The larges vechciles were more profitable still are I think. Part of big threes problem, was the american governments expecting them to probide welfare for workers, enitlement culture that is only really seems in the public sector in the uk. Why they were expected to provide health care for life people of 48 to sit around drinking beers idling.

With all the laibiies on american car companies they may think have to focus on short term profits to keep all unions idelers.

Why a car a manufature is expected to provide health car for retiremed workers is a mystery.

With american labour relations 2 tier wages where 2 people do the same job for different pay rates, againt this is largly offered in the public sector here in the uk. Where can be 2 contracts one fat pension earlier retirement high compensation if let go and one on legal minimum.

This is not way to run a buiness as kill morale unfair and uneconomic one way to undermine relationship with workers is a two tier pay system.

I think even after chaper 11 they have kepted some of the two tier wages voluntarily
GM have keepy have keep someone of that nonsense voluntarily I think although no exbert in this I just like american vechciles

Its just a shame that chaper 11 did not completely clear these pointless liabilty so could compete more strongly in car manufuature.

The profit still big on trucks although forgien manufatures moving in to build trucks also. American manufatures had a comparative advanatage in large veichles as dont sell outside north america japanese had not focuses on them nor europeans.

What was wrong is lets all the small car market go, it is not making trucks etc that made large profits.

The trucks were the good part of the buiness, it is often said trucks to blame. This does not make sense as was profitblae. The problem is the small cars not good enough and lost share not that make big trucks but did not make small cars. Lack of invesmtent not helped by paying for united stated health care system and early retirement.

Having said the brittish manufatures were even worse than american workers why they all went broke partly along with the government switching support to the city of london.

If the governent is going to be in the buiness of propering up sectors, than i think car manuaturing has more social good than the brittish governments choice to proper up the city. The amwerican governent has kept american econonoy more balanced stable even maintied a higher social mobilty than the brittish as much of a mess as american auto indursty was in did a lot better than the british.

The british brands are all forigen ownened and more importantly forgien managed in effect.

Just a shame the brittish government cant be put in to chapter 11 so that restructure, as currently have to pay a lot of waste like GM did for the non elected non chosen government public sector leader and retires to be kept in mercedes on tax payers money unlike american union workers who are just workers, the british governent workers paid on poltical basis rather than contractual to extent. As every gm workers contracts counts or not. The brittish government contracts are worthless in them self as i discovered when i had the audacity to expect to be paid on mine-). As much as think amererican car industry union contracts stily, unlike brittish system is intergity that people are treated on basis of contracts under the law rather than conections and law used as an excuse to keeps the like of people in say civil service bank of england government etc in life time of hand outs when failure . When for example they will not pay even basic contract costs to others. As stupid as think american union contracts are at least certain intergrity of system in that people all accepte rules and follow these which merits some repesct. Unlike british system where rules are just an excuse to pay interest groups and ignored for others rules weak system then money is given to favoured people on a non economic basis.

Of course only a crack pot in britian would expect rules to be followed consistntly for there own sake so regard as bad etqquette to comment. May be because of nature of british democracy still throw back thinking that people are not equal we had lords etc so culture of people not being equal so not based around consistant application of law or process but who which means when hear about GM type sitiations less repsect here as favour people are in effect sometimes "corruption british sytle" as things not based around application of law in quite the sameway in the uk in respect to government it not the law but the indudivual the law is used as an excuse after the fact to pay a favoured party or as a negative also.

Just a shame the brittish government cant be put in to chapter 11 so that restructure, as currently have to pay a lot of waste like GM did for the non elected non chosen government public sector leader and retires to be kept in mercedes on tax payers money unlike american union workers who are just workers, the british governent workers paid on poltical basis rather than contractual to extent. As every gm workers contracts counts or not. The brittish government contracts are worthless in them self as i discovered when i had the audacity to expect to be paid on mine-). As much as think amererican car industry union contracts stily, unlike brittish system is intergity that people are treated on basis of contracts under the law rather than conections and law used as an excuse to keeps the like of people in say civil service bank of england government etc in life time of hand outs when failure . When for example they will not pay even basic contract costs to others. As stupid as think american union contracts are at least certain intergrity of system in that people all accepte rules and follow these which merits some repesct. Unlike british system where rules are just an excuse to pay interest groups and ignored for others rules weak system then money is given to favoured people on a non economic basis.

Of course only a crack pot in britian would expect rules to be followed consistntly for there own sake so regard as bad etqquette to comment. May be because of nature of british democracy still throw back thinking that people are not equal we had lords etc so culture of people not being equal so not based around consistant application of law or process but who which means when hear about GM type sitiations less repsect here as favour people are in effect sometimes "corruption british sytle" as things not based around application of law in quite the sameway in the uk in respect to government it not the law but the indudivual the law is used as an excuse after the fact to pay a favoured party or as a negative also.

Mr Lott drives a Mini Cooper...Jajajaja....after years of denigrating European cars. It shows the disingenuousness and mendacity of the wingnut religious right. Then they wonder why people don't take them seriously....and call them con-men. Often societies marginalise the selfish and dishonest. In America they seem to thrive.

How exactly does buying a new car prove someone to be disingenuous (Really, that's the mot juste here?) and mendacious?

From what the article says, it appears that Lott never said small cars shouldn't be made, nor that he wouldn't drive one. He merely said that he didn't want everyone to HAVE to drive one. I agree with him, as i'm sure most people do.

It would be interesting to compare the costs and outcomes of the two choices and see what that means:

1. First choice: the government pushes to raise minimum fuel standards succeeds. We can estimate the costs that would have entailed. Probably can look up the estimates of the time.

2. Second choice: let the market decide. We did this. The short-term allure of relatively cheap gas encouraged the Big3 to make big cars and lots of trucks, including SUV's and minivans (which aren't so mini). They minted profits for a period of time. It then fell apart because oil is relatively scarce commodity whose price responds to supply constraints and world demand. Interestingly, even as US companies clearly saw China and Asia growing like crazy, they acted in their short-term interests and continued to rely on relatively cheap oil to make and sell the big cars the market demanded. Then oil prices rose like crazy and consumers were squeezed by a lousy economy and we know what happened: Chrysler nearly closed and had to be sold to Fiat while GM required a government bailout that was essentially the US acting as GM's investment banker and substantial owner.

I think we can learn a few lessons from this, though I doubt we will.

First, it is sometimes stupid to fight short-term expenses because survival in the long-term matters. Look at what has become of GM and Chrysler. This is not only a matter of corporate survival but of social cost. We literally spent billions to keep these companies afloat rather than lose hundreds of thousands if not a few million jobs with all the suffering that would have entailed.

Second, sometimes belief in the market is dumb. Just plain freaking dumb. The idea that the market will generate benefits all the time is again proved to be idiotic unless your idea of "benefits" is mass unemployment and a significant loss of wealth. Sometimes the government can provide a useful prod to think about the long run.

Only in order to push for long term outcomes. The research is overwhelming that people/markets do a terrible job at valuing long term gains (even when it's not an issue of projecting the future, like with estimating the value of fuel economy). That's the second biggest market failure behind negative externalities.

The market got it right, fuel economy rose in the absence of regulation to force it to. To state a heresy, the American government got it wrong with bail outs ... let stupid companies for the sake of creative destruction. I know it was an impossibility due to the need to save American jobs, but how do we know that companies that have been saved won't make life threatening decisions again ... moral hazard dictates we need to let them fail for the greatest long term good.

Exactly, the Market, left to her own devices would have wiped the idiot car companies out of existence and only the ones which were smart enough to agree with John Kerry would still be around. This might not work, however when it comes to externalities like climate change and pollution, so government still has a role to play IMHO.

If (as I suspect) the smartcar is owned not in place of, but in addition to, your run of the mill guzzler, one can only cradle one's chin in wonderment. The Western consumption model is skidding to the curb very fast.

It isnt as though the smaller cars are any slower fo any practical purposes.
I remember watching as a kid "Dual" whith Dennis Hopper if I remember right, and he was struggling to get to 80MPH to out run this pursuing truck.
I don't know exactly how big that engine was but it ran into several Litres and was still slower than an original Cooper "S" , all 1275cc of it!

It should be noted that the car companies were churning out SUVs in large numbers largely because millions of Americans were being told by their accountants to take advantage of the tax deduction afforded by purchasing a truck >6000lbs that could be used in their business.

It is the pols themselves, not Detroit, who put us on the path to non-competitiveness. Why did they pursue this policy?

The pols also failed on the gas/infrastructure tax. It has been the same for close to 30 years because presumably our infrastructure is excellent in condition, sufficient in size, and has not had any inflation in repair or replacement costs.